reports in the Guatemalan context, as well as the absence of immediate and effective actions.81 The Court also declared the violation of Article 7 of the “Convention of Belém do Pará” as a result of the failure to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights to life and to personal integrity.82 44. The foregoing reveals, at first sight, that based on the absence of a ruling by the Court on concluding its analysis of the general obligation of prevention – in other words, during the “first moment” of this obligation (before the disappearance of Claudina Velásquez) – the State’s responsibility is constituted by the Court’s analysis of the specific obligation of prevention, establishing the international responsibility of Guatemala as a result of the analysis of the “second moment” — before Claudina Velázquez’s body was found — as a result of the failure of the authorities to take measures aimed at preventing the danger reported by the victim’s parents. 45. I consider that this has a negative impact on the analysis of the obligation of prevention as a whole and, subsequently, on the determination of international responsibility, because the failure of the authorities to adopt measures and take diligent actions – during the “second moment” of the State’s obligation of prevention that, in this specific case, had the purpose of preventing the danger and avoiding the injuries suffered by Claudina Velásquez — was a result of the lack of clarity in the laws that should have defined the actions to be taken following the report that the victim was missing. And this resulted from the adoption of “insufficient measures to resolve the problem” of violence against women in Guatemala,83 non-compliance that plainly formed part of the State’s general obligation of prevention with regard to the “first moment” – that is, related to the general obligation to prevent the disappearances and murder of women. 46. In this regard, I consider that this constitution of responsibility is a result of a State responsibility that appears during the “first moment” of the obligation of prevention because, in the context of an escalation of homicidal violence against women in Guatemala of which the State was aware,84 and despite all the measures taken by the State with regard to the problem, at least since 2001,85 none of these measures was aimed at establishing an effective mechanism or practice that would ensure an immediate search for missing women; a situation that evidently had an impact on the “second moment,” when the victim’s parents were confronted by the inexistence – that persists up until the present – of an instrument, mechanism or practice requiring the immediate search for their daughter. 47. This is logical when noting the measures of reparation ordered by the Court. Indeed, among the “guarantee of non-repetition” and under the heading “Measures to prevent violence against women: State policies,”86 the Inter-American Court indicated the insufficiency of the measures implemented by the State to address the problem, 87 stressing that, despite the existence of a “bill on the immediate search for missing women” – which Para. 133 of the judgment. Para. 133 of the judgment. 83 Para. 120 of the judgment. 84 Para. 111 of the judgment. 85 Para. 112 of the judgment. 86 Para. 259 and ff of the judgment. 87 The insufficiency stems from the failure to allocate resources, “the lack of coordination between the different institutions and a comprehensive protection strategy,” as well as the fact that the State “had not proved that it had implemented the necessary measures to ensure that the officials responsible for receiving missing person reports had the capacity and the sensitivity to understand the gravity of such reports in the context of violence against women, and the willingness and training to act immediately and effectively.” Para. 264 of the judgment. 81 82 13